More evidence of this administration's hate towards military

Evidently earlier this year the FBI launched Operation Vigilant Eagle which searched for white supremacists and local militia groups with a focus on Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. This was a few months before the controversial DHS report on "rightwing extremism" was released.

The Democrats have made it widely known that they have no love for the military and its operations. Since 9/11, liberal Democrats have come out with crazy statements about the U.S. military and the War on Terror. Their rhetoric reached its peak during the Iraq War. Elected officials here at home badmouthed our troops, and some even went overseas to trash America and her warriors.

And now the W.H. and federal agencies consider these veterans a threat? These veterans are no more of a threat than terrorist-turned-scholar Bill Ayers and his good friend, our president.

Our enemies continue terrorism even as Obama ends War on Terror

Even if the Obama administration doesn't agree with Bush's War on Terror, we know what the terrorists think: starting fires in Australia and beheading a Polish geologist.

Do you feel safe?

So ends the War on Terror?

In the NYT, Roger Cohen thinks the War on Terror has ended with President Obama's interview with Al Arabiya news:

In his first White House televised interview, with the Al Arabiya news network based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, President Obama buried the lead: The war on terror is over.

Yes, the with-us-or-against-us global struggle — the so-called Long War — in which a freedom-loving West confronts the undifferentiated forces of darkness comprising everything from Al Qaeda to elements of the Palestinian national struggle under the banner of “Islamofascism” has been terminated.

What’s left is what matters: defeating terrorist organizations. That’s not a war. It’s a strategic challenge.

Is it a "strategic challenge" to hunt down the terrorists who killed thousands of innocent people in NYC? That is a disturbing categorization. Most people already agree that the War on Terror isn't a conventional war, but to call it a strategic challenge would be to absurd.

No BDS relief in sight even as Bush nears end of term

You just can't win with these BDS sufferers.

When Bush got elected and re-elected, liberals from near and far came out on the offense to label him as a dumb cowboy-wannabe from Texas who entered the White House thanks to his daddy and also managed to steal the 2004 election.

Now Bush is about to leave Washington and the liberal media still won't let him go in peace.

Journalism maven Helen Thomas writes about more "bizarre Bushisms":

On the Middle East crisis, his double standard was in full display.

Bush said he remained an opponent of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, which has been invaded by Israel. He found only the firing of rockets by Hamas unacceptable, but expressed no sympathy for the Palestinians who are suffering heavy Israeli bombardment with American-supplied weapons.

Bush told the news conference: "Israel has a right to defend itself." He did not say the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. He also said the Gazans have to stop smuggling arms. But he said nothing about the tons of arms we have supplied Israel.

As for the global economic meltdown, the president admitted he had to abandon his free-market principles and approve of massive government intervention in the economy. He said this switcheroo was required in order to save the free market system. The logic evoked the Vietnam era when we had to destroy a village in order to save it.

Come on, Helen. Of course the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves, but the fact remains that Hamas provoked Israel by lobbing rockets across the border, striking fear and killing innocent Jews in the border towns. Also, sending bomb-strapped crazies into crowded Israeli markets doesn't sound like a defensive maneuver to me, either. Do you condone the horrible terrorist acts of Hamas?

And about the economy, I'm sure if Bush had stuck to free market principles and let capitalism work its way slowly and painfully into recovery, Thomas and her liberals critics would attack that "Bushism" with no end in sight. Seriously, it's a no-win situation for President Bush. Liberals will always have something to pick on.

Don't even bring up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush's decisiveness and resolve saved thousands more lives around the world. Thomas ought to read the article from The Telegraph's Andrew Robert.

That should provide enough answers to Michael J.W. Stickings' questions about Cheney:

I'm all for liberation, too, but are the people of Iraq truly free? Is there really a vibrant democracy there? And in Afghanistan, what of the ongoing war and instability there? It's not enough just to believe in your own high-falutin' rhetoric of freedom and democracy. It's not enough just to say that there have been such accomplishments, such historic progress. There's the not-so-little matter of the facts on the ground to consider, and the facts don't really back him up, do they? And what Cheney does not consider is not just those facts but that his own policies -- or, rather, Bush's -- have hindered progress in both Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as elsewhere, including in Iran, in North Korea, and with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Even granting him that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do -- which, in retrospect, I'm not about to do -- what about what came after the invasion? So too in Afghanistan. What about what came after the overthrow of the Taliban, specifically the immediate turn to Iraq and the failure to go after al Qaeda with full determination? And then, what about the gross mismanagement of the war in Iraq, and how Iraq turned into a cesspool of terrorism and sectarianism?

So give it a rest. Iraq is much, much better without the psychotic tyrant Saddam Hussein. Absorb that fact. Learn to live with it. Bush and Cheney did the right thing.

Obama silence on Gaza war irks many

Oh yes, the silence is deafening. President-elect Obama has remained muted in light of the recent conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. Also not a word from his choice for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. And same with Joe Biden, his V.P. with mountains of foreign policies experience.

It's starting to make many Obama supporters uncomfortable, like Simon Tisdall of The Guardian, even though he's hit the nail on the head:

Regional critics claim Obama is happy to break his pre-inauguration "no comment" rule on international issues when it suits him. They note his swift condemnation of November's terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Obama has also made frequent policy statements on mitigating the impact of the global credit crunch.

Exactly. Obama the politician at his best. He knows far too well that Israel is doing the right thing, but he's scared to piss off the pro-Palestinian/Hamas liberals (I'm betting the majority of them voted for Obama/Biden). He doesn't even have the guts to follow President Bush in voicing support of Israel, one of America's most staunch allies.

Isreal enters Gaza as savior, not invader

The international public opinion is once again condemning Israel's ground invasion into Gaza to root out Hamas and its rocket-lobbing terrorists. President Bush has recognized Hamas' provocation and supports Israel's right to self defense. Europe is divided, with France taking the lead in criticizing Israel.

Hamas' disregard for lives of innocent civilians, on both sides of the border, is again exposed. These terrorists fire rockets into Israeli townships, not military targets. Hamas members store weapons in mosques and people's homes and require people to stay there as human shields. The group encourages mothers to send their sons (and daughters) to be trained as suicide bombers. Its charter calls for the elimination of Israel.

Israel, on the other hand, tries its best in this bloody conflict to comply with humane and international laws. Its air force warns residents of air strikes. If a jet knows Hamas employs human shields, it will abort the missile firing. The IDF sends text messages to Gaza residents warning of imminent ground offensive, at the cost of the element of surprise and thus sacrificing more of its own soldiers.

I cannot help but wonder how many Palestinians actually wish for Israel to overpower Hamas and destroy it. Life in Gaza has been made miserable by this terrorist gang. How does anyone get away with using women and children as human shields? Unfortunately, they cannot voice their opposition to this nonsensical violence or risk death.

We all want peace. But history has taught us that peace often arrives after overwhelming power to destroy the enemy.